Motion controls were very good in Skyward Sword.

Games like DBZ and Metroid Prime 3 are examples of good ones. Skyward Sword is an example of a bad one. Overall, I like motion controls. But as long as the game lets your have the choice.

How is having a giant screen in the middle of your controller traditional?

I totally remember when the ps1 controller had that as that was the tradition back then. /s

I'm not continuing this pointless debate. Your idea of a "traditional" controller is different from mine. If you want to be a pretentious prick about it, then so be it

Well, I did say "well implemented". ;)

Of course, there are plenty of examples of motion controls done badly, but there's also tons of instances where I felt the use of motion really elevated the experience.

But not to the same extent as I've repeatedly said. I can't play Zelda on Wii without motion controls but I can on Wii U. That shows a shift in focus, Nintendo no longer sees motion controls as a primary control scheme but as a secondary/optional one as it should be.

Asking me a question the very post you quoted answered. The giant screen doesn't affect how the controller plays traditional games. Here's a question for you though. If a door has window on it, does that mean it's not a door anymore?

By that logic no controller nowadays is traditional then since they have way more inputs than the NES gamepad. (or whatever the first controller was)

Your first two sentences sure don't sound like you aren't continuing this debate.

this and so much this.

i doubt even 1 person would argue that a bowling game on a standard controller is even close to as fun as bowling in wii sports.  motion is just perfect for that gameplay.  but i found wiimote/nunchuck woafully awkward for playing smash,.. just terrible stuff.

i fundamentally have nothing against motion but (like DLC) it has been "done wrong" far too often. 

i do hope that nintendo incorporates motion into the NX in some capacity.  i also do hope they found better technology than the wiimote provided.  the lag, the offsets, the drift,.. it took away from the experiences.  i'm not sure what it means to have better tech but i hope there is something out there that is more reliable then a gyro and accelerometer.

is it though? if the quality was there we would have seen more of motion controls this and in future gens. All those things you mentioned dont really need motion control. So we went from having a system that was built around it to having all three systems barely using them.

thats one game out of MANY released on that system.

Fatal Frame and ZombiU.

MatPat uses Zelda as an example but has the higher argument of sticking to classic controls because motion controls aren't as good. Reggie is framing it differently; not as better but more as expanding the way we play games.

Think about it this way: MatPat is arguing that motion controls are useless while Reggie is arguing that they aren't.

I can at least offer my own anecdotal account: playing Call of Duty for Wii and Wii U. While often argued to be inferior to classic controls, using the Wii Remote and Nunchuk felt better to me. Often times I was competitive with fellow players and even placed top spot in some games, though by the end of my run playing that way, I'd admit it's not as accurate. It was sure fun, though!

A different sort of example is me using the Steam Controller, though this one isn't motion control. Arguably inferior and less accurate than KB+M in FPSs, I still prefer using it to traditional controls because of how it feels.